s 



^,S.<^-i-fr 



<r^t.cLe ( ^r>/v 



u 




d ^^c ^'^)?- 



Qass 
Book 



s 




vJ VV J V 


— 


.A^ 


i^l"^ 


«- 



63d Congress 

'2d Session. 



'[ 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 



Report 
No. 110. 



COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 



December 8, 1913. 



-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
of the Union and ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Lever, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the 
A following 

REPOET. 

[To accompany H. R. 7951.] 

The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill 
(H. R. 7951) to provide for cooperative agricultural extension work 
between the agricultural colleges in the several States receiving the 
benefits of an act of Congress approved July 2, 1862, and of acts 
supplementary thereto, and the IJnited States Department of Agri- 
culture, having considered the same, report it back to the House 
with amendments and with the unanimous recommendation that 
the biU as amended do pass. 

This bill provides for tlie inauguration of cooperative agricultural 
extension work through "field demonstrations, publications, and 
otherwise," to be carried on in accordance with plans mutually r.greed 
upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges 
receiving the benefits of the first MorrUl Act. 

In practical effect it undertakes to provide such machinery as will 
bring to the attention of the farmer, the farmer's wife and children, 
in the most strikir.g manner such demonstrated truths and practices 
of successful {.griculture which, lived up to, make rural living desir- 
able and profitable as an occupation. It provides the connecting 
link between the sources of information in matters relatirg to f.gri- 
cultural life and the people sought to be reached with such informa- 
tion, and furnishes an added f.gency to our system of agricultural 
teaching. It carries out to the farm the approved methods and 
practices of the agricultural colleges, experiment stations, the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, and the best farmers, and demonstrates their 
value under the immediate environment of the farm itself, thus 
providing the means by which the organized agricultural institutions 
of the country may be made to serve all the people, as should be the 
case, rather than a limited and i)rivilcged few. Under the plan pro- 
vided in this bill the information which has been accumulatmg fo^" 



n\3 



2 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WOHK. \ 

more tlum luilf n ccMliirv and rcscrvoiriii^ in <)ur (•()llr<,'('s aiul other 
institutions orj^anizt'd in tlu' interest of aj^rienltnre is to he nni(h' 
availahh' to the mass of the ])eoi)le in such fashion as will hiiiii; the 
best results in the matter of im])rove(l rural conditions and rural 
livinj;. 

There is no more ini|)ortant work for the ai^neultural institutions 
of the eountrv than that of strenjrthenin<j: field service, demonstra- 
tion, and instruction, to the en<l that the promotion and (leveloj)ment 
si<le of aj;riculture •-hall balance its investij^'ational and research 
activities. To i)rovide ade(|Uat<' facilities for the utilization hv the 
fanner of the eflicient work of the scientists in the Departinent (tf 
Af^-iculture and in the various colle*;es and expi-riment stations ()f 
the several States is one of the verv important problems with which 
a^icultural thouj;ht must deal. 'P^arnest scientists every day are 
(liscoverinjr useful truths, nu'thods, arid i)rocesses which if known by 
the farmer and aj)plied by him would nu>an financial inde])endence 
and social pr>»«rress; but the farmer does not know what the scientist 
is doin<; and has no way of leai'nin<; of his discoveries. Sullicicnt 
information has been «;athered and is awaitin*; distribution to revo- 
lutionize rural con litions in this country in the next ten years, but 
it is dead information until it becomes vitalized by the service to 
which the farmer puts it. The loj^ic of the situation forces the 
nocessitv for ])rovidinjj: adequate machinery by which the storehouse 
of information may be opened to those who stand upon the outside. 
Conj,Tess itself has committed the country to a j)olicy of encoura^n^. 
promoting:, and developin<j: aj^riculture which makes the lej^islation 
proi)osed in this bill an imix'rative duty that the fruits of its former 
action may be realiz('(l in actual rc^sults. 

A fjlance at this lesjislation is conclusive of the committee's propo- 
sition. 

The passajje of the first Morrill Ac-t for the endowment and main- 
tenance of at least one a.s;ricuhural coUej^c in each State committed 
the Federal Government emphatically and irrevocably to a policy of 
appropriatiufj money to aid in acquirhig and diffusins; among the 
people of the Tnitefl .States useful information on subjects connected 
with agriculture. 

This first serious national effort to teach agriculture in a practical 
way was followed by legislation providing for the establishment of 
agricultural exi)eriment stations in the several States, the creation of 
the Federal Department of Agriculture, and other enactments for 
collecting agricultural truths to be made available to the farmer 
through such colleges and other agencies as were found suitable ft)r 
the purpose. 

Approximately 570,000,000 have been expended by the Federal 
Government in the nuiintenance of the State experiment stations and 
agricultural colleges in the last .')() yeai-s, and the annual appropriation 
for th(» I)e|)art n\ent of Agriculture reaches a sum of more than 
$20,000,000. These expenditures have resulted in the accumulation 
of a vast amount of agricultuial information, which, made available 
to the farmer and applied bv him, would work a marvelous n^forma- 
tion in the economic and social condition of every rural community of 
the country. The pa.st policy of the Government has confined itself 
largely to the gathering of information for the farmer. \o one 
questions the wisdom of such a course, but it must be conceded that 



DEC 13 '318 



*»^g7 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 3 

*^ (^if it has been wise to gather information for the use of the farmer, it 

- would now be un"wise to deny him that use. If we have not been 

-^ profligate in getting facts together for the service of the farmer, it 

^ can not be argued that it would be profligate to make these facts 

'— available to him in such manner as will serve him best. Every 

-4^ student and economist agrees that the eflicicnt work of the colleges, 

d stations, and Agricultural Department must be taken out to the 

rS farmer, and The most important and pressing problem at this time is 

j '"' that of findinoj the most cfl'cctive machinery for doing this. The 

proposition of linking up the man on the farm with the demonstrated 

practices of successful agriculture must be met. 

Various agencies have been tried as a coime(;ting link, with various 
degrees of success. The printed page is insufficient. The bulletin 
and agriculture press have not been found efl'ective in reaching and 
impressing the farmer in the remote districts, who most needs the 
information. The late Dr. Seaman A. Knapp, founder of the demon- 
stration work in this country, said : 

There is much knowledo^e applicable and hel])ful to husbandry that is annually 
worked out and made available by the scientists in the United States Department of 
Agriciilture and in the State experiment stations and by individual farmers upon 
their farms, which is sufficient to readjust agriculture and place it upon a basis of 
greater profit, to reconstruct the rural home, and to give to country life an attraction, 
a dignity, and a ])otential influence it has never received. This body of knowledge 
can not be conveyed and delivered by a written message to the people in such a way 
that they will accept and adopt it. This can only be done by personal appeal and 
ocular demonstration. 

His judgment was correct, and to meet the deficiency of the bulletin 
and agriculture^ press in impressing the fiumer there arose the system 
of undertaking to do this by means of the lecture institute work, 
as the bulletin and lecture has its place in the extension field, but 
the best thought of the country has concluded that the characteristic 
attitude of the farmer is such as to make the development of some 
other system of reaching him with the best practice of agriculture a 
pressing necessity. 

The farmer is naturally conservative, and to an extent skeptical 
of new methods. His habits of thought and methods of procedure 
are well settled upon him, and he is slow to change eitner unless 
convinced beyond any doubt of the wisdom of domg so. 

To him experimentation with new methods seems to be, and is, 
in the nature of a gamble, and the farmer can not afford to gamble. 
He may read the bulletin and hear the lecture, but unless he is 
shown that the method proposed for handling his business, shown 
under his own conditions, is better, he will not accept it as against 
his own, which has provided a living at least for himself and family. 
It is not sufficient to tell the farmer that his method is not the best. 
He must be shown the best methods. The appeal must be made 
thi-ough his eye. He will quickly accept new principles and prac- 
tices 5 their value is demonstrated to him under the envh"onment 
in which he lives, and the system of itinerant teaching, which Sir 
Horace Plunkett says ''has stood the test better than any other," is 
predicated upon the idea of this willingness upon the part of the 
farmer to adopt those methods which have been proven toi hini\ 
personally to be most effective in his business. \ 

The fundamental idea of the system of demonstration, or itinerant 
teaching, presupposes the personal contact of the teacher with the 



4 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EJ^TENSION WORK. 

person bpin«^ tmi^'ht, llu' part icipjit ion of the pupil in the iHtiial 
tl('iii()nstrati(tn of tlic li'ssoii l)oiii^ tauj^ht, and the siiccoss of the 
nii'tliod i)ropos('(l. In this country it is to an extent a new method 
of tea« linij;, l)Ut in the Old Worhl the same system has been so pre- 
eminent Iv sneeessful as to become a fixed and reco^nii/ed method of 
carry in <^' the truths of apiculture and home economics to the door of 
the farmer. It is a system which frees the pupil from the slavish- 
ness of tlie textbooks, which nnikes the field, the «!:arden, the orchard, 
and even tlu' parlor and kitchen classrooms. It teaches to "learn 
to do by doiii^'." As President Wilson said: "It constitutes the 
kind of w(»rk which it seems to me is the only kind which f^enerates 
real e(hication; that is to say, the demonstrative process and the 
personal touch of the nnm who does the demonstrating^." This 
method of teachiuj; is in oj)eration in practically every civilized 
country of Euroj)e- the British Emi)ire, Austria, Demnark. France, 
Holland, (icnnany, Russia, and Iiel<^ium — and it is significant, as 
pointed out by authorities in agriculture, that the farmers in Europe 
are producing; two and one-half to three times as much per acre as 
American farmers and this in the face of the fact that European lands 
liave i)cen under cultivation for many centuries and were perhaps 
ori<;inally not so fertile as ours. 

This method of demonstration or itinerant teaching is not en- 
tirely new to this country. For nearly a decade it has been in suc- 
cessful operation in the South, where it was inaugurated under the 
late Dr. Seaman A. Kna])|) to meet an emergency caused by the 
outbreak of the cotton boll weevil, which threatened the existence 
of that industry. From the evidence submitted before your com- 
mittee from time to time it is believed tliat this system Is working 
a quiet but certain revolution in the agiicultural thought an<l meth- 
ods of tliat section. The bank accounts of the Southcin farmers 
who have adopted tlie best practices of agriculture as taught by the 
itinerant teachers or demonstrators operating under this system 
have furnished convincing proof that such a system, sufficiently 
flexible to adjust itself to the s])ccial problems of each State, the 
State being the judge, sliould be put upon a permanent basis, im- 
proved and extended to the entire country. The committee sub- 
mits the following data, furnished by the Department of Agriculture, 
as showing the results of the farmers' cooperative demonstration 
methods as compared to the results obtained under the usual methods 
of the average farmer. 

CORN. 

Percentage of excess of production under demonstration methods 
over the average production for the entire State during the year 
1912: 

Per oont . 

Texas 47 

Oklahoma 98 

ArkuiiHiis 62 

MiKsiiisippi 126 

Alaliaina 156 

<H'«ir^ia 157 

South ("an)lina 132 

North Carolina 134 

Virginia 75 



COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 5 

COTTON. 

. Percentage of excess of production under demonstration methods 
over the average production for the entire State during the year 
1912: 

Per cent, 

Texas .v. 39 

Oklahoma.,. 77 

Arkansas 79 

Alabama I47 

Georgia I74 

South Carolina ^ 100 

The theory of this bill is to extend this system of itinerant teaching, 
thp State always to measure the relative importance of the different 
lines of activity to be pursued and to determine upon the most 
important, to the entire country by providing for at least one trained 
demonstrator or itinerant teacher for each agricultural county, 
who in the very nature of things must give leadership and direction 
along all lines of rural activity — social, economic, and financial. 
This teacher or agent will become the instrumentality through which 
the colleges, stations, and Department of Agriculture will speak to 
those for whom they were organized to serve with respect to all 
lines of work engaged in by them. If he is sensible, tactful, and 
resourceful, he \vill become readily the leader of thought within the 
sphere of his activities. One of the most pressing problems in con- 
nection with rural life and progress is that of the development of 
leadership from among the rural people. This bill supphes this 
long-felt deficiency, well understood by those who have given to the 
problem serious thought. 

The committee, from the facts before it, concludes wdthout hesita- 
tion that production can be many times increased through the 
machinery provided in this bill, but the committee does not believe 
that Congress can afford to appropriate money for the sole purpose 
of teaching the farmer the best methods of increasing production. 
To teach the farmer the best methods' of increasing production is 
exceedingly important, but not more vitally so than is the impor- 
tance of teacliing him the best and most economical methods of dis- 
tribution. It is not enough to teach him how to grow bigger crojis. 
He must be taught how to get the true value for these bigger crops, 
else Congress will be put in the attitude of regarding the work of the 
farmer as a kind of philanthropy. The itinerant teacher or demon- 
strator will be expected to give as much thought to the economic 
side of agriculture — the marketing, standar(hzing, and grading of 
farm products — as he gives to the matter of larger acreage yields. He 
is to assume leadership in every movement, whatever it may be, the 
aim of which is better farming, better living, more happiness, more 
education, and better citizenship. 

The system of demonstration teaching so far developed in this 
country has confined its activities to the work of teaching the adult 
farm, and in a limited way only through the "boys' corn clubs" and 
*' girls' tomato clubs " — the boys and girls of the farm. Until recently, 
however, no effort has been made to connect this work through the 
colleges with the rural schools. This work of teaching agriculture 
and home management to the farm boj^ and Hrl has been begun 
recently in one State, and your committee believes that this bill 



6 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 

furnislu's tin* iuucIuiumv hy wliich tlic faiin hoy and <;iil can ho 
n'a<-ho(l with n'ul a^Miciilt iiial and home ('(•(•iiomic tiaiiiin<; throiif^h 
tho cciuntrv schools. The (iciinaii Waiidcih'hcr system of tcachiii<^ 
the boy and fjirl of tho funii hiis hccii |)r(MMniricntly siiccossfid, and 
thoro is no rojuson that tho same S3'stem sliould not find c(jual cn- 
couragomont and success amon^ our people. If rural life ls to bo 
readjusted and aji^riculture dignified as a profession »us it should bo 
and is, the count iv boy and girl must be made to know in the most 
positive way that successful agricultuie re(|uii'es as much brain as 
does any other occujiation in life. Tlu" whole trend of our system 
of e<hication is calculated to minimize agriculture as a ])idfession. 
Its logical teuih'ucy is to create a feeling of dissatisfaction with farm 
life and an aml)ition to get away fiom it. Such a situation is unfortu- 
nate; it is most dangerous. '1 he farm boy and girl can be taught that 
agriculture is the oldest and most dignified oi tho ])rofessions, and 
with ec|ual attention and ability can be made as successful in dollars 
and cents, to say nothing of real ha])piness, as any of the other 
professions. Your conunittee believes that one of the main features 
of this bill is that it is so llexil)le as to ])rovide for the inauguiation 
of a system of itinerant teaching for boys and girls. 

Your connnitlee commends to the esj)ecial att(>n(ion of this House 
that feature of the bill which provides authority for the itinerant 
teaching of home ecoiu)mics or home management. This is tho 
first time in the history of the country that the Federal Government 
has sliown any tangible purpose or desire to help the farm woman 
in a direct way, to solve her manifold ])roblems, and lessen her heavy 
burdens. The drudgery and toil of the farm wife have not been ap- 
preciated by those ii])on whom the duly of legislation devolves, nor 
lias proper weight be(>n given to her influence upon rural life. Our 
efforts heretofore have been given in aul t)f the farm man, his horses, 
cattle, and hogs, but his wife and girls have been neglected almost to 
a point of criminality. This bill provides the authority and the 
funds for inaugurating a system of leaching the farm wnfe and farm 
girl the elementary pruiciples of home making and home manage- 
ment, and your committee believes there is no more important work 
in the country than is this. 

That there is abundant r(>ason for tiie encouragement of rural 
activities along lines of greater production and more profit can 
hardly be disputed. It is only necessary to call attention to the 
fact that for tiie })ast 80 years there has be(>n a constant drift of rural 
population toward towns and cities. In ISSO. 70.5 per cent of the 
population of the country was classed as rural, while in 1!)10 only 
53.7 per cent is classed as rural, and when consideration is given to 
the fact that po])ulation in villages, cities, and towns of 2,500 or less 
is classed as rural, it is safe to assume that only about 'M\ per cent of 
our population actually live upon the farms. The deserted farm 
homes, the increasing tendency toward a system of farming by 
absenteeism, the growth of tenancv, all furnisli danger signals to 
those who have eyes to see. The deserted farm home will ceas(> to 
exist only wlien farm life is made as attractive and profitable as is 
city life, and this result can be attained only through a systematic 
effort to reilirect rural methods and ideals. 

Another danger signal is furnish(>(l in the fact that soil fertility is 
unilenial)ly decreasing. esp(>cially in the older Stales, and production 



COOPEEATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 7 

fails to keep pace with the demamls of the nonagricultural classes. 
Reliable figures show that in acreage of agriculture per 1,000 inhabi- 
tants there has been a decrease in seven and an increase in only three 
during the last 10 years, as follows: 

Per cent. 

Corn decrease. . 14.4 

Wheat do. ... 30. 5 

Oats do 1. 7 

Barley increase. . 42. 3 

Rye decrease.. 11. 7 

Buckwheat do 10. 1 

Potatoes increase. . 3. 1 

Hay and forage decrease . . 3. 2 

Tobacco do 2. 9 

Cotton increase.. 9. 1 

Wliat is true. of our cereal and forf.ge crops is true also of meat 
production. During the last census period there was an increase of 
20 per cent in popidation with a decrease of 21 per cent in beef- 
producing cattle, 7^ per cent decrease in the number of hogs, and 
14^ per cent decrease in the number of sheep. Reliable authority 
shows that in 1907 the number of beef cattle in the country amounted 
to 51,566,000, while in 1913, six vears later, the number had decreased 
to 36,030,000, or a decline of 30 per cent. In 1906 the United States 
exported cattle to the number of 525,000 head, and in 1912 exported 
only 105,000 head, or a decline in our exportation of cattle in six 
years of 75 per cent. In 1906 the United States imported 16,000 
head of cattle and in 1912 imported 318,000 head of cattle, or an 
increase in our importation of cattle of 2,000 per cent in six years. 
It is said that we consume 91 per cent of our wheat and 98 per cent 
of our corn. These figures are conclusive of the fact that we must 
learn to produce more or accustom ourselves to eat less. Your 
committee believes that the agricultural potentiality of this country 
has not begun to be developed and that we are in fact only in the 
pioneer stfge of agriculture; but whatever may be the juogment of 
the committee in tiiis respect, it is certain that a proper rtgard for 
the future and a full ap])reciation of tendencies make imj^erative the 
inauguration of some kind of system to check these tendencies and 
safeguard the future, and it is thought that the demonstrated effect- 
iveness of extension teaching wherever it has been tried furnishes 
the remedy. 

The fundamental' pur{)oses of this bill have received the most 
emphatic indorsement of agricultural thinkers of the country, the 
rural press, influential business organizaf'ions, and agricultural and 
labor organizations. President W. O. Thom])son, of the University 
of Oliio, and chairman of the executive committee of the Association 
of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment ^Stations, in his statement 
before the committee most heartily approves the purposes and 
principles of the bill, as did Director E. IT. Jenkins, of the Connecti- 
cut Experiment Station and president of the Association of Ex- 
periment Stations. The bill was most heartily commended by 
Mr. Arthur E. Holder, legislative committeeman of the American 
Federation of Labor. In furnishing his views to the committee as 



8 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAI. EXTENSION WORK. 

to tlu (U'sirahilily <>f llu^ piissn^j:!' of (his hilj, Sc.cn'tnrv of A^'riciilt iiro 
Jloiiston says: 

I havi' carefully roud the hill and it seem.-^ to me to lie adiniral'Iy drawn to ac- 
eoiii])liph the i)urj)()se8 in view. The I)e])artnient of A^rriculture and (he different 
Stale <oIleges nave enouph apricidlural information to revolutionize the a^'ricullural 
industry in this country if it could l>e effectively transmiKed (o (he farmer. Ap a 
matter of fact, va»*t numliers of farmers either do not receive tlie information or <lo 
not receive it in such a way as (o he ade<|ua(ely im]>ressed wi(h it and to he induced 
to ai)|)ly it. It seems very unfortunate wiien we are sjuMidinj; so mucli money to 
ohtuin information (hat we can not secure a wider aj)i)lica(ion of it. 

I am esi)e(ially im])ressed witli tiie <-oo|»era(ive features of the hill. I helieve that 
the jirovisions hearing on (his jHiint will se( ure a lietter unders(andinp and a fuller 
roordina(ion of effort on (he i)ar( of the Federal I)e])artment of A trri culture and the 
Stale agencies. The two are working to the .ssame end and should work in the closest 
harmony. 

The hill contemplates that the different agencies shall, in cooperation, carefully 
devise and execute i>rojec(s. This in itself will he an immen-'^e advance. I think it 
clear that if the I'edend (lovernment is to make a])j)r<)j)ria(ions for such a purpose as 
this hill contemplates, it slioidd he in jmsition to .-^ee that llie money is apjtlied for 
the j)urj«)sf8 intended and is api)lied eHiciently. The fact that the iiill ])rovides that 
the work shall lie carried on in sucli manner as may l)e mutually agreed u])ou iiy tiie 
Se«Telary of .\griculture and the State college or colleges, will guarantee the applica- 
tion of the money in accordance with the intention of Congress and will .se( ure 
efficiency. I do not now see how it would l)e possihle to make a wiser arrangement. 

Ih addition to this your committee calls attention to the fact that 
diirin<; the last session of the last ('on<^ress the House, without a dis- 
sent int; voice, passed a I)ill identical in the primary ends souj^ht to 
be accomplished showinjj a d 'cided feehii": in favor of the purposes 
of this proposi'd lej^islntion. 

It is jirojier to call the attention of the House to a fundamental 
differeiice in the hill referred to above and the bill now reported 
favoral)ly from the committee. The Avork to be d')ne is the same in 
each, l)uf the method of di)in.ir it differs somewhat. The bill pass(>d 
by the last Conjjress provid 'd for the establislimeiit of ajjricultural 
extension departments in connection with the land-grant coUej^es 
of the States.' Tliis bill provides for the inaujruration of cooperative 
a«^ricultural extension work l)etween the land irrant colleo;es and the 
United States Department of Ai^riculture, the work to be carried on 
in such manner as may be nuitiially arrived ujion l)v th(> land i^rant 
coUej^es and (he Secretary of Ac^rieulture. It will be observed that 
the central idea of the machinery of this bill is that of close coopera- 
tion between (he Stat(>s and tli(> Fedc^ral (Jovernment in undertakinc; 
a ^reat work. This bill presents a vital and to some extent a new 
prin(ij)le in the matter of Federal and State relations which the com- 
mittee beheves is justified by the situation. 

The Federal (lOvernment is being called upon constantly for funds 
to conduct work within the States and it is safe to assiune, judgino; 
th<^ future by the pjust, that the demand for ap|)ropri!itions for such 
work within the States will inerejise rather than diminish. The 
Federal (lovcuninent can juid should be helpfid to the States in com- 
plying with legitiimite demands for funds, but your committee 
believes that there shoidd be kept in mind always certain guiding 

Crincij)les. The committee would emphatically oppose any action 
y the. Federal (lovernment ItMuling to a centralization of power 
and domintition of work, although the committee as emplmticidly 
believes tluit if the Federal (lovernment appco|)iiales money for 
Work within the Staters it must assume a certain amount of responsi- 



COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 9 

bility for the expenditure of this* money to the Congress and the 
people of the United States. It is the duty of the Federal Govern- 
ment to appropriate funds in order to stimulate public sentiment 
and to encourage the desire to meet these funds with moneys appro- 
priated directly by the States ; and to aid and assist in the coordina- 
tion of all such work in order to avoid waste and unify effort all along 
the line. Tlie principles involved are those of cooperation, the 
P'ederal Government aiding by advice and assistance in coordinating 
effort and the States performing the more important details of the 
local work. This bill places the responsibility for the actual con- 
duct of the work proposed in the agricultural college and provides 
specifically for the adjustment of work to local conditions through a 
cooperative relationship established between the college of agricul- 
ture and the Secretary of Agriculture. There is thus avoided any 
possiblity of developing a centralized and dominating agency, as is 
also avoided any possibility of forcing upon the States types or 
kinds of work not readily adapted to the needs of the people. It is 
hardly necessary to urge the self-evident truth that the Federal Gov- 
ernment, with the broad powers that Congress has given and is 
giving it in the matter of investigational work in agriculture should 
have some machinery by which this valuable work may be put into 
the hands of the individual farmers on their own farms. But the 
committee is firmly convinced that if the Federal Government should 
undertake this work of the institutions within the States, conflict, 
chaos, duplication, and waste must inevitably result. There is no 
question, however, that by wise admiinstration, through the ma- 
chinery of this bill, proper relations can be established, maintained, 
and these dangers avoided. 

These vital questions were early recognized by the wSecretary of 
Agriculture, who called a conference for the purj^ose of discussing 
the question of relationships with the executive committee of the 
Association of American Agricultural (Alleges and Experiment 
Stations As a result of this and other conferences, the executive 
committee foimulated and presented certain prinei])les as follows: 

The executive committee of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges 
and Experiment Stations desires to express to the honorable Secretary of Aoji- 
culture its great gratification at the attitude of his department in its effort td bring 
aboiit a closer and more efficient relationship between the work of the department 
and that of the colleges and experiment stations. 

(1) The executive committee heartily indorses the suggestion of the Secretary 
that as a means of inaugurating and perpetuating an intelligent and sympathetic 
cooperation of these agencies, there be established a permanent committee on the 
general relations of the department and the colleges, said committee to be made up 
of representatives from both the department and the association. 

RE!=iEAKCH, 

(1) The executive committee cordially agrees with the point of view of the Sec- 
retary that the primary function of the Federal department is to undertake the 
study of problems that are more particularly regional, interstate, and international 
in character, and that upon the stations should rest the responsibility of investigating 
the problems that arise within their respective States. 

This general policy is not to debar a union of effort by the department and a given 
station in the study of a jjroblem whenever it becomes evident that such cooperation 
is necessary or will tend to a more successful outcome. 

(2) Whenever the department finds it desirable to study a problem within a given 
State, harmonious relations and an intelligent understanding woufd undoubtedly 
be promoted by a c-onsultation between the department and the state's station prior 



10 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTUBAL EXTENSION WORK. 

to ita inauii^uratioD In <ai«' a staliou it< unable Ut cooperaU.' in the work <*r diK's not 
doflire U> do so, it should lend sympathetic and advisory support. 

(3) rufjualiCu'd approval is >:iven to the |»roj)OHai of tlic Secretary that in or<ler 
to assiM in the larrvinp "Ut of the policy of c<K>penition there be orpinized a joint 
committee on <i>rrelation of research, to be made up of representatives from tiie 
department and the college and station association, one function of said committee 
to bo the preparation lor early i>ui)liiation by the department of a list of scientifjc 
project*) to lie undertaken by both llie department and the stations. This committee 
should also be empowj'red lo assist in any feasible way in correlating the work of 
the national and State research agencies in such manner as shall promote efiiciency 
in 8<'curing results. 

(4) K<|ually cniphaiic approval is given to the j)lan of holding group conferences 
between the .■icienlilic specialists of the department and the stations. It would seem 
desimble and jK-rhaps necessary that, owing to financial conditions within the asso- 
ciation and stations, the necessary expenses of such conferences should be met from 
a fund administered by the department. 

(5) It seems to be mutually agreed that in order to make available to students 
of science the research work of the dei)artnient and stations, and to promote its stand- 
ing in the scientilic world, there should be |)ubli.><hed by the dei)artnient a journal 
of agricultural research, such journal to ctnitain only those contributions from the 
department and stations as are vL«6ed by the committee selected for that purpose. 

EXTENSION. 

The executive coniniitiee approves the policy of unifying the adniiniftrdtion of the 
extension service and is desirous of assisting in securing Federal legislation to that 
end on the basis of the following principles and conditions: 

(a) That the extension service shall be administered wholly under the immediate 
direction of the college of agriculture. State leaders of extension service shall be 
appointed by said colleges and shall be recognized as college officials. 

(h) That extension-service projects maintained by Federal funds shall be entered 
upon only after mutual approval by the department and the colleges. 

(c) That the funds to be applied to the maintenance of the extension service shall 
be secureil through congre.«sional appropriations made to the Federal department, to 
be distributed to the .>*everal States as provided by law, on the ba-sis of the funda- 
mental provi.-^ions enil»o(lied in the I.ever bill (II. R. 1()92). 

(d) It is understood that the ajipropriations made for extension service by the 
several States shall be under their control. 

(e) It is further understrKxl that the (Federal) moneys api)ro])rialed to extension 
service shall all be expended under the plans and agreements mutually approved by 
the department and college.^, and that no outside cooperative arrangement for main- 
taining extension service shall be made with any corporation or commercial liody, 
excepting a.-; a corporation or commercial body may wish to donate funds to be admin- 
istered in extension service exclusively by the colleges of agriculture in con.'*ultation 
with the de|)artment. 

The <*»)inmitt<'(' ctilU at tent ion to the fuct that in t lu' c.-^ixMial matter 
of o.\l(Misi(iM service the vittil pfiiiciples set f< il h hy tluM", mniitleeare 
all foimd iti this hill. The Secietary of Ai,'rictilt life has appicivet! the 
recoiiimeiKlatioiis made hy the executive eoniinittee and lias stated 
in lu>arin«js before your eomtnittee and elsewhere that the extension 
work provided for in this hill shotdd he condiieted win lly undei the 
direction of the collej^e < f a<;ri(iiltin-e. the Stale lenders to he rect g- 
nize<l as eollet^e oflicials, and that the extension service pn jeets main- 
tained hy Federal funds >hotiId he jointly ji<;r(M'd lo hy the depart- 
ment titid the colleLre.'^. F^\ce|)t in this respect this hill d( es not 
differ from the one passed in tlte last ('on<;ress. 

For the infiirmation of the House y. \\r c mmittcM' lie.i^s t(» std)niit 
the followinj; hrief jinalysis i f the hill hy >ecli<»ns: 

Section 1 authorizes the inatif^iiration tf apienltnral extension 
W(»rk in each State in (onneetion with its hind-i^rjint collejje <r et I- 
lo^es iiicoopjM-ation with the Tniled States I)e|)artm(«nt of Ajjrietiltiire 
and j^ives to the Iej,'i>latnre of ea<-h State the anthoritv to desi'Miate 



COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 11 

which of the college or colleges receiving the benefits of the act of 
Congress approved July 2, 1862, and known as the first Morrill Act, 
shall administer the funds appropriated by this bill. 

Section 2 defines the character of the work to be undertaken as 
consisting in the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations 
in agriculture and home economics to persons not resident in the 
several colleges through field demonstrations, publications, and other- 
wise. This work is to be carried on upon plans mutually agreed upon 
by the Secretary of Agriculture and the several land-grant colleges. 

Section 3 is the appropriating section of the bill and provides the 
sum of $480,000 for each year, $10,000 to be paid annually to each 
State which by the action of its legislature assents to the provisions 
of this act. This is a straight, unconditional appropriation to the 
several States. The additional sum of $300,000 is appropriated for 
the fiscal year following that in which the foregoing appropriation 
first becomes available, and for each year thereafter for nine years 
the sum exceeding by $300,000 the sum appropriated for each pre- 
ceding year, and for each year thereafter there is permanently pro- 
vided the additional sum of $3,000,000 for each year, making a total 
appropriation for the tenth year of the life of the act and thereafter 
annually of $3,480,000. The additional appropriations, this sum of 
$3,000,000 annually are to be allotted to the several States in the 
proportion which their rural population bears to the total population 
of the United States, as determined by the next preceding Federal 
census. The Census Bureau defines as "urban population that re- 
siding in cities and other incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or 
more, including the New England towns of that population." Pro- 
vision is also made that no payment out of the additional appro- 
E nations shall be made in any year to any State until an equal sum 
as been appropriated for that year by the legislature of such State 
or provided by State, county, or local authority for the maintenance 
of the work provided in the bill, the idea being that some authority 
other than the Federal authority must provide a sum equal to the 
additional appropriations made by the Federal Government. To 
illustrate, the allotment of a given State might be $50,000, which the 
State would receive if it should duplicate this amount, but it might 
happen that the State would desire to appropriate for such a purpose 
only $25,000, and under the provisions of the bill would therefore 
be entitled to only $25,000 of the Federal funds in addition to the 
$10,000 which is appropriated unconditionally. In requiring the 
States to duplicate the amount of the Federal appropriation the bill 
is undertaking to encourage them to greater activity along lines of 
demonstration work. 

For the convenience of the House the committee submits the 
following table, showing the total population of the United States, 
by States, and the total rural population, by wStates, and the 
amount of these additional sums to which each State will be entitled 
under the basis of allotment as provided in the bill when the act 
shall mature at the end of 10 years, to which must be added for each 
State the sum of $10,000 unconditionally appropriated. 



12 COOPERATIVE AOBICULTUBAL EXTENSION WORK. 

The table is as follows: 



SUte. 



United SUUs. 



Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas. .. 
Caliiomia... 

Coiurado 

Conneolicut. 
Delaware. . . 

Fiorlda 

GeorRia 

Idalio 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky... 
Ix)uisiana... 
Maine. 



Maryland 

Massnohiisetts^. . 

Miciu;:aii 

Minnesota 

Mis3i.ssippi 

Missoiifi 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New iiampshire. 

New York 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

North Carolina... 

North Dakota 

Ohio 



Oklahoma 

Orei;on 

Pennsylvania.. 
Khode Island.. 
South Carolina. 
South Dakota.. 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 



Vermont 

Virginia 

WashinKlon... 
West Virginia. 

Wi.soonsin 

Wyoming 



Total popu- 
lation. 



91,972, 2M 



138,093 
204,364 
574, 449 
377,549 
799. 0J4 
114,766 
202,322 
762,619 
609,121 
325,591 
638, 591 
700, 876 
224,771 
690,949 
289,906 
656, 3S8 
742, 371 
795, 346 
366,416 
810, 173 
075,708 
(97, 114 
293,335 
376,053 
192,214 
81,875 
43 ,(,572 
113,614 
537, 167 
327, 301 
206, 287 
677,056 
767, 121 
657, 155 
672, 765 
665,111 
642,610 
615,400 
683,888 
184,789 
896,542 
373,361 
355,966 
061,612 
141,990 
121,119 
Xa, 860 
146,965 



Total rural 
population. 



49,348,883 



1,767,662 

141,094 

1,371,768 

907, 810 

394,184 

114,917 

106,237 

633,639 

2,070.471 

255,696 

2,161,662 

1,557,041 

1,644,717 

1, 197, 159 

1,734,463 

1,159,872 

360,928 

637,154 

241,049 

1,483,129 

1.226,414 

1,689,803 

1,894,518 

242,633 

881,362 

68,508 

176, 473 

1,928,120 

629,967 

280, 730 

1,887,813 

613,820 

2,101,978 

1,337,000 

366, 705 

3,034,442 

17,966 

1,290,668 

607,215 

1,743,744 

2,968,438 

200,417 

187,013 

1,686,083 

636, 460 

992, 877 

1,329,640 

102,744 



Percent of I 
total rural 
population in 
the United 
States and 
by States. 



Amount of 
appropria- 
tion allotted 
each State. 



63.7 $3,000,000 



3.58 

.29 
2.78 
1.S4 

.SO 

.23 

.21 
1.08 
4.10 

.62 
4.38 
3.16 
3. 13 
2.43 
3.51 
2.36 

.73 
1.29 

.49 
3.01 
2.48 
3.22 
3.84 

.49 
1.79 

.14 

.35 
3.91 
1.28 

.67 
3.83 
1.04 
4.26 
2.71 

.74 
6.15 

.04 
2.62 
1.03 
3.53 
5.99 

.41 

.38 
3.21 
1.08 
2.01 
2.69 

.21 



107,400 
8,700 
8:3,400 
66,200 
24,000 
6,900 
6,300 
32,400 

125,700 
15,600 

131,400 
94.800 
93,900 
72,900 

105,3)0 
70.600 
21,900 
38,700 
14,700 
90,300 
74,400 
96,600 

115,200 

14,700 

53,700 

4,200 

10,500 

117.300 
38,400 
17,100 

114,900 
31,2(X) 

127,800 
81,300 
22,200 

184,600 

1,200 

78,600 

30,900 

105,900 

179,700 
12,300 
11,400 
96,300 
32, 400 
60,300 
80,700 
6,300 



Of course tlic next census iiuiy show n little cliaiij^c in tlie relative 
positions of the several vStates with respect to their rural i)opulatioiis 
and, hence, the above tahlc wouM have to \)c niodiiied to meet such 
a change. 

Section :i ju-ovides further that before the funils appropriated by 
tliis bill shall become ])ayable to any college for any fiscal year, plans 
for the work to be carried on under it sliall be submitted by such 
college and ap])roved by tlie Secretary of Agriculture, 

Section 4, authorizing the ap])ointiiient by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture of a direct(»rof cooperative agricultural extension work was 
stricken from the bill as being unnecessary. The remaining sections, 
5, (■), 7, S, and 9, deal laigclv with the adininistrative features of the 
bill and follow closely the I ditch and Ad.Mius Acts. 



COOPEEATIVE AGEICULTUBAL EXTENSION WORK. 13 

The committee recommends the following amendments: 

On page 2, line 22, after the word "Agriculture," strike out the 
comma and the words "or his representative" and the comma. 

On page 3, line 20, beginning with the words ''Provided further,'^ 
that entire proviso down to and including the period on page 4, was 
stricken from the bill and the following substituted for it: ''Provided 
further. That before the funds herein provided shall become available 
to any college for any fiscal year plans for the work to be carried on 
under this act shall be submitteel by the proper officials of each col- 
lege and approveel by the Secretary of Agriculture." This language 
was thought to convey the ieiea of the bill more clearly. 

On page 4, line 13, the word "the" was inserted before the word 
"cooperative," and on the same line, after the word "work," the 
period was dropped and the worels "provided for in this act" added. 

On page 4, as already explained, section 4 was eliminated. 

The sections of the bill following this are renumbered to conform 
to this committee action. 

o 



?>: 5 






BRARY OF CONGRESS 



D00e74m77M 




